 Well, thank you for that, Ryan. We have about 20 minutes for some questions before a break. But I know that the burning question that's on all of your minds and on our mind is for you. Well, let's have a survey. Who in the room is thinking about voting in November? Raise your hands. And who amongst those voters, and you've all been identified, who is thinking about voting LP or third party? OK, well, with that in mind, we're going to direct all Trump questions to Walter. But let's, Walter, obviously you knew Murray Rothbard very well. Give me the Rothbardian blocky in view on voting generally. Well, I don't know about the Rothbardian view, although Murray was a political junkie, would be, I think, the right word. He was always involved in LP and voting for this guy and that guy, and he knew every congressman and mayor. And he was always taking sides. But I think the first person along with Donald Miller started this thing called Libertarians for Trump. And the way I see things is there are really three areas that Libertarians are concerned with. One is foreign policy. One is domestic personal liberties. And the other is domestic economics. And foreign policy is much more important than the other two put together. Even though I'm an economist, I still think foreign policy is more important than economic policy. Because as Bob Higgs and Murray Rothbard tell us that foreign policy determines economic policy, I mean, the reason we have the Fed is a great reason is to enable us, that is them, the US government to pursue all sorts of activities all around the world. And Donald Trump is the only one who said, I can get along with Putin. He's the only one who said, let's rethink NATO. He's the only one who said, we shouldn't have been in the Middle East. He's the only one who said, countries like Japan and Korea and Germany, we shouldn't have troops there. They should have their own troops or they should pay for the troops. Now, it's true he contradicts himself a little bit. But what the heck? He's just a politician nowadays. So he has to contradict himself. Otherwise, they'd kick him out, I guess. By the way, my man Bernie Sanders isn't that bad on foreign policy. I mean, he's a commie, but what the heck? You can't have everything. I am very ambivalent because on the one hand, I vastly preferred the Donald to Hillary. I mean, Hillary, I think, is a warmonger and we can rely on her to be a warmonger. And I don't really favor World War III with modern technology. It would kill half the human race. And I'm afraid of Hillary. Look, I favored my man Obama against McCain in a way because I thought McCain was going to drop bombs on people. And Obama seemed less warlike than McCain and similarly with Romney. So I make no apology about favoring Donald Trump vis-a-vis Hillary. The problem is the LP. I mean, if Gary Johnson gets it along with Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts, I mean, Gary Johnson right now is pulling at around 10%, which is unprecedented for libertarians. Usually, libertarians don't pull at all. Or if we pull, we get 1% or a half a percent or something like that. And now 10%, and if Weld comes along, and there's a lot of hatred of both Donald and Hillary and the neocons are seething with hatred against them. Maybe the libertarians will take New Mexico and Massachusetts possibly and throw the election into the House of Representatives. So I'm a little bit ambivalent. On the one hand, I've been a libertarian before the national LP started. I ran for Assembly of New York State in 1969. I think the LP started in 1971 or 72. And I've given all sorts of lectures at the state conventions and national conventions of the LP. So I'm an LP-er. On the other hand, I really want Donald. So I'm in Louisiana. And it looks like in Louisiana, Donald is out polling Hillary by 20% or something like that. So it'd be easy to vote in Louisiana for the libertarian. But if I were in a state which is in play, then I would have to think seriously about voting for Donald against the libertarian party. So it's a matter of strategy and tactics. It's not a matter of principle. I think most people in this room would share my concerns. We're all pro-liberty. It's just a matter of how can we best promote it in the case where both candidates are none of them are very libertarian at all. OK. All right. First question that I have. We have a bunch of these here too. So we'll try to get through them. It's from Brian Tracy, Tacoma, asking Dr. Block or any others, why are progressive ideas like the minimum wage so easily distilled into effective soundbites? And how can good economics be better delivered to the low-information border? A theme and variation on that is, why does the left have all the good folk songs? Where are our folk songs? I have a sociobiological explanation for this. And that is that, well, sociobiology is the theory that we are the way we are now based on what it took to be alive a million years ago and leave genes into the next generation. For example, most of us are afraid of snakes and not bathtubs. And yet bathtubs kill more people nowadays than snakes. Most of us see a baby crying and are very motivated to help the baby. Because a million years ago, if you were afraid of a bathtub, it didn't confer any advantage to you. But if you were afraid of a snake, it did confer advantage and similarly with crying babies. Well, I think that most people are very benevolent. If one of us keeled over, the rest of us would call an ambulance and be very unhappy with that. We all help each other. In our tribe, if I get sick this week, you help me. And next week, you get sick, I help you. Our tribe survives. So I think we're sort of hardwired for benevolence, but we're not hardwired for markets. Markets are a very recent thing in human history, relatively to speaking. And even benevolence goes back to us when we were mammals. So every time I get freshman classes, they hate the idea of price gouging and monopoly capitalism. And we have to have a minimum wage. We have to have welfare and all sorts of stuff like that. So I think we're hardwired for that. And that's why the left has all the folk songs, because of all the good folk songs and all the novels, with the exception of Atlas Shrug and a few others. So that would be one of my explanations as to why we're sort of pushing the rock of Sisyphus up and then the rock keeps coming down. Why do we get 1% of the vote or maybe 5% of the vote? Why isn't Ron Paul the president? And why isn't Jeff Dice the foreign secretary or something like that? The reason is we are hardwired against it, which means that we have a tough road to hoe. But I don't think that that's an argument for passivity. I mean, I'm going to be promoting liberty, even though I don't think we're going to reach it, because it's just the most glorious thing to do. I mean, I'm a big fan of Mozart and Sunsets and Baby Smiles. And I'm also a big fan of liberty. And even if I was told that we're never going to make any progress, I would still do it, because it's the most beautiful, glorious, wonderful thing to do. OK, I have another one for Walter Block. If the lesser of two evils, Trump versus Hillary, is two evil, what do you recommend regarding the Libertarian Party candidate? Well, the example I gave, when I came out in favor of Ron Paul, and I have a book in favor of Ron Paul, sort of my love letter to Ron Paul, a lot of libertarians were saying you shouldn't vote at all. And the example I said is, suppose we were slaves, and the master said that we can now vote for overseer goodie or overseer baddie. Overseer goodie is going to beat the crap out of us once a month. Overseer baddie is going to beat the crap out of us once a day. And we all vote for overseer goodie. The lesser of two evils. Does that mean we favor slavery? No, it just means we don't want to have the crap beaten out of us every day. We'd rather every month. So I don't see any, in principle, argument for voting for Donald, even though he's not really a libertarian, although in certain ways on foreign policy and even economics, he's not as bad as Hillary. OK, this question is for Mr. Deist from Kyle S. from Portland. Is there a, quote, moral tax? Is there a moral tax? Moral tax. But I would have to say there's not a moral tax because a tax is something that's taken in voluntarily against one's will. So where the line begins to get a little blurry is when you're in a quasi-contract situation. Our friends on the left, and this is a valid view, really believe in social contract theory. And they think that the social contract theory, the fact that we all live here and don't move away voluntarily, sort of binds us as a country and that taxes are just and legitimate. Obviously, libertarians don't share that. But you can get into situations where you have more of a contractual arrangement, like a homeowner's association. When you enter into it, at least in a reasonably voluntary way, and your homeowner's association assesses dues to you so that someone can mow the common property, that may start to look and feel like a tax if you don't like your homeowner's association very much. But at least in theory, the real question of a validity of tax is the same question as the validity of any government policy. Is it voluntaryism or force? I think that's the question. OK, Walter Block, please walk us through the demand curve for labor depicted on the back of your handout. I paid somebody to ask that question. If you'll just turn to the last page of my thing and look at the diagram on the right where we have an inelastic demand curve or a vertical demand curve. And the minimum wage law went up from $0.40 to $0.70. I think it was in the early 1950s and the 1940s. And in those days, people my age will know that if you got into an elevator, there was a guy standing there. He wasn't a pervert. He was the elevator operator. And you say, I want the 10th floor. And he'd say, OK, and he'd move you up. And then you get to the 10th floor and say, wait, I can do a little bit better. And he'd get a little closer because he couldn't get it exactly. And then the minimum wage law went from $0.40 to $0.70. And guess how many elevator operators lost their job the next day? None. Because it takes a while to substitute automatic elevators for manually operated elevators. So it really looked good. So if you had $0.40 and now you have $0.70 and everyone is saying, boy, the minimum wage law is good. But over the next couple of years, by the way, they now have this thing called robots for the minimum wage. I'm not kidding. Google it. I was just told last night. I never heard of that, a robot. Well, it took a while. And now there are no manually operated elevators. Namely, the demand curve is not perfectly inelastic. Now let's take a look at the next one on the left side there. And here you have a minimum wage law of $5 an hour. And there are 1,000 workers. And then they raise it to $7. And now there are 900 workers. Namely, 100 workers are unemployed. But let's suppose that these workers are all buddies and they're brethren and they want to help each other. And what they do is they share. Namely, every 10 weeks, 100 people don't work. Namely, the first week, the first 100 people don't work. The second week, another 900 people work. But the first 100 work and they say the second 100 don't work. And by the end of 10 weeks, everyone worked nine weeks. Namely, they all share. Well, how much money would they get? And my calculation is at $7, there would be 900. So the wage bill or the total amount of money that goes to wages is $6,300. Well, suppose they share this. And now you divide 6,300 by 1,000. They all get $6.30 an hour. This is something I pull on my freshmen to get them going. Now the minimum wage law sort of looks good. It's true that not everyone is getting $7 an hour, but they're all getting $6.30, which isn't as good as 7, but it's better than 5. So it looks pretty good. And my challenge to my students is, well, what's wrong with this? Because we know that the minimum wage isn't good. And this makes it look good. And the answer is the elasticity of the demand curve. The curve pivots, it gets flatter and flatter. And here we have a difference between the Austrians and the neoclassicals. What the neoclassicals do is that they see the minimum wage creating unemployment as a hypothesis. And a hypothesis has to be tested. And if you test it at a certain time, like Carlton Kruger tested it between New Jersey and Pennsylvania. And if you test it at a certain time, the demand curve isn't very elastic right away. And it looks as if the minimum wage law is pretty good. But the Austrians don't see it that way. We are praxeologists. Remember that bid? Babies are praxeologists. We see it as apodetically necessarily true. The point is that, well, let me give you an example. My PhD dissertation was with Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize winner. And what I was trying to do is prove that when you have rent control, it screws up housing. And most of the time, my econometric regression equation showed that the more rent control, the worse housing, holding other things constant like wealth and weather and stuff like that. But every once in a while, I would get the wrong sign, namely more rent control, the better. And sometimes it would be statistically significant god-helping. And what Gary Becker was thinking, he never said it quite this way. He was too polite. He was very nice to me. But what he was thinking was block you more and go out and do it again until you get it right. Well, what's testing what? My econometric equations or the apodict that necessarily true statement about rent control or minimum wage. And Gary Becker was very good on the minimum wage. You see, what he should have said if he were really a neoclassical, he should have said, well, Cardin Kruger, maybe minimum wage law works differently in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, or as we from New York call it, New Jersey. Maybe it works differently there. Or maybe 5% of the time, minimum wage law works well. Oh no, he didn't have that view. He said the minimum wage is no good. And one of the key elements of science or empirical science is replicability. If I do something in my lab and you can't replicate it in your lab that casts aspersions on what I did. So what they did is they tried to replicate this and they couldn't. But the point, you know, I once got into an argument, like, suppose I trade you my wristwatch for your shoes. Necessarily, there's something about your shoes I like more than my wristwatch. And there's something about my wristwatch you like more than your shoes. Necessarily true. If you understand the English language, you can't test that. You can only illustrate that. So this is the difference between Austrians and mainstream people about the minimum wage. They're trying to test it. And sometimes it comes true and sometimes it doesn't. And Clinton is always relying on Cardin Kruger's AC. You know, it was in the American Economic Review. But it's not going to be in the quarterly journal of Austrian Economics, which is the Mises scholarly journal because there we believe in praxeology or we support praxeology. So the fallacy here is, look, look, this is why pitchers in baseball pitch the ball at 100 miles an hour. Why? Why do they do it? Because they don't want the batter to have time to adjust. The slower you pitch, the more time they have to adjust and then they can hit the ball out of the park if you throw it at 50 miles an hour. Well, it's the same thing here. If you give it a little time, then all of the automatic, all of the manual elevator and operator, elevator manually operated elevators go. And we just have automatic ones. Even in the fast food industry, they're now getting rid of people doing things when you press a button and you get your burger and you go to the airport and even garbage collection, they're doing it mechanically. So we have robots for minimum wage because it's going to help robots or highly skilled people that can make robots and repair robots. So that was the point of this, to show that a case seemingly in favor of the minimum wage law they share and they all get 6.30 instead of five. It's fallacious because in the long run, to put it technically, the man curves are more elastic and in the evenly rotating economy or in the equilibrium, when you raise the minimum wage law to $10 an hour or $12 an hour, no one who is not worth that in productivity can get any job, they're all unemployed. And it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of just illustrating. We Austrians are not against mathematics, we're not against econometrics, we're not against statistics, but we interpret it as illustrating, not as testing, you can't test economic law. Well, we have to take a break until about one 10. But the three of us will stay up here and continue to answer questions. I'd like to see the ones that have been submitted and we'll see you in about 15 minutes after a bathroom refreshment break in the lobby and we'll look forward to seeing Bob and Tom after the break, thank you.